MYTH: We don't have a solution to nuclear's "waste problem"

REALITY: Nuclear waste isn't a problem. In fact, it’s the best solution we have to meeting our energy needs while protecting the natural environment!

Here's what you need to know:



I saw this thread, and thought about it.

The thread addresses the question whether a disaster proof stirage of waste is necessary, e.g. safe against earthquakes.

It does not address the issue of proliferation containment re nuclear weapons (i.e. first-stage enrichment can be amended to full uranium enrichment).

Neither the issue of misusing waste to create 'dirty nuclear bombs' by criminal actors.

Was breathtaking to see bombs falling near Chernobyl, for instance...


Secondly, there is another aspect beyond the waste that is a problem of nuclear power, and this is that it is a centralised energy production.

Renewables are normally decentralised, using different locations for windfarms, photovoltaic plants, etc.

This makes it less vulnerable to dropouts from regional incidents, which may be natural or malicious.

Again, controlling nuclear power plants emerged as strategic goals in Ukraine, for instance.


Last but not least, the supply chain question.

Europe etc. had sent 'military peace missions' against piracy and regional instabilities in the past, also in cases to protect nuclear fuel (and other raw materials) supplies. So it does maintain a dependency.

True enough that renewables also depend on resources (e.g. rare earth metals), but I'd be more confident that high level of circularisation is achievable to lower this dependency from mining countries/regions.

@christian_zerfass The need of nuclear fuel is not even in the same order of magnitude as the renewables you mention.

But honestly, with the current gas situation, the “dependency” argument against nuclear is a joke.

@christian_zerfass Nuclear power is not problem-free. But it is far greener per KWh than any renewable source. At the current stage we are in, it's madness not consider it.

BTW, renewable hydroelectric power plants are just as centralized as nuclear. The only decentralized ones are wind and such, but they cannot produce much.


I don't disagree with you that in the current situation things are different. Or in that nuclear phase-out before coal/gas phase-out wasn't the most sensible thing to do.

But in the long run - contrary to what the twitter-thread implies - I find a fission free energy system reasonable.

P.S.: By dirty bomb I referred to spreading radioactive waste with conventional explosive. Wouldn't increase explosive power, but the psych. effect would be impactful

@christian_zerfass It is incredibly difficult to produce a “dirty nuclear bomb” from power plant uranium. Only state actors with a lot of resources could do it.

In the mean time the planet is noticeably heating and we (e.g. Germany) is burning coal and gas.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon @

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!